BG, I and many others are not stupid enough to pay for a service we do not use.If you use that service, fine, pay for it.

But I think you knew that all along

Bye the bye, your apparent socialist attitude does not seem to encompass pensioners, the low paid or the poor in regard to the BBC licence. Make 'em pay eh? and no freedom of choice!

But you said you DO(DID) use it, 'rarely'. Did you never listen to any of the radio channels either? What do you watch? Big Brother? Over 75's do get exemption. Pensioners are far from the poorest in society these days. But good point re. the low paid etc - You are a man of the people after all.

Ave, your rant did make me smile!Unless I'm mistaken, the public services to which you refer, are funded from taxes into general revenue. Why cannot the BBC be funded in the same manner? Would save heaps in admin costs surely? Pensioners and others to benefit, what's not to like?

So you’re not against the principle of the Beeb being publicly funded then? Just quibbling over the logistics & efficiency of the collection method? OK – I guess it could be funded from general taxation but having a clearly visible flat-rate sum has a certain clarity …..careful though greeneagle, the principle of rich people paying more for a public service available to all is a bit of slippery slope for someone like you is it not?

By the way I feel there is a bit of snobbery about things like Love Island (although I swear on my life of course I would never watch such a thing ). But it’s not an either/or choice as there are literally millions of people who do watch LI but also watch & enjoy quality Beeb output like David Attenborough’s Life on Earth or dramas like ‘Line of Duty’. What is debateable is how far the Beeb should go to produce similarly popular but trashy television. Generally I think it gets the balance about right TBH.

I know we live in an omnichannel world - mobile, social, on demand etc., but reflecting on what our household watches and also using the Planner as a guide, I would say the output probably breaks down as follows:

I know we live in an omnichannel world - mobile, social, on demand etc., but reflecting on what our household watches and also using the Planner as a guide, I would say the output probably breaks down as follows:

Yep, the sheer quantity and quality of content is amazing when you think about it. TV, podcasts, iPlayer, radio, news, the excellent website. All high quality, niche to populist, and with no adverts.

The things I have no interest in (Eastenders, kids programming, Strictly etc) I recognise are of huge value to its intended audience. And even checking on Argyle news (fixtures especially), the PAFC page on there is very good.

I know we live in an omnichannel world - mobile, social, on demand etc., but reflecting on what our household watches and also using the Planner as a guide, I would say the output probably breaks down as follows:

Yep, the sheer quantity and quality of content is amazing when you think about it. TV, podcasts, iPlayer, radio, news, the excellent website. All high quality, niche to populist, and with no adverts.

The things I have no interest in (Eastenders, kids programming, Strictly etc) I recognise are of huge value to its intended audience. And even checking on Argyle news (fixtures especially), the PAFC page on there is very good.

Long may it continue

Amen to that. Most of them are an insult to our intelligence, or is the average intelligence that low?

Pogba earns, what, £300k a week and you think the Beeb salaries are a scandal?

yes i do.pogba gets his money from commercial resources not from us via our tv licence fee.

So does the BBC become a second rate broadcaster, pay far less and watch its staff walk away to companies with 'commercial resources', or strike a balance in order to get the talent it wants? As others have pointed out, ITV and Sky pay their stars a hell of a lot more.

It's the world we live in, and the BBC have to play ball and pay the going rate. You publish the salaries of almost any company and they will provoke outrage given the obscene period of inequality we are living through. The difference is that they don't have to, and they don't receive a licence fee that is being politically hunted down despite providing excellent value.

Ask yourself why the previous Murdoch-supported Tory government forced the BBC to publish salaries, then take a look at wider society and ask if those salaries are a cause or an effect of the economic system we live in. In that sense, then the Pogba salary becomes much more relevant.

The real criticism of the BBC here is the gender inequality. Who can honestly say that Alan Shearer gives twice as much value as Laura Kuenssberg?

there are always talented people coming through who should be paid an acceptable fee.pogba,somebody mentioned ant and dec,these are paid for by commercial companies and i don't begrudge them a single penny even though i loathe ant and dec.it is unacceptable that moira stuart,for example,is paid £150,000 a year. it is inexplicable and indefensible.anybody,with training,could present a news bulletin.

The BBC is one of our greatest achievements as a nation and one that I'll happily support.

The Beeb are innovators, always have been. Without them TV as we know it wouldn't be the same, even today you have the likes of Sky, ITV etc. with far bigger budgets and supposedly better writers and still the BBC churn out some of the best television this country has to offer. They're always looking for something new, concepts that haven't been done before. Which is why even if they don't produce the shows you watch today they more than likely created the concept for them several years ago in the first place, another broadcaster may be doing it differently now but 9 times out of 10 it'll be the BBC's innovation that formed the concept they've taken on.

This salary story is just another stick to beat the great Corp with. The pay gap is certainly wrong and something that needs addressing, that said is it really the case that the BBC will be the only ones doing this to women? I doubt it, I'm sure Jeff Stelling and Jim White earn a fair old wack compared to their female counterparts who do the same job, the only difference is the BBC is obliged to publish the figures. It's wrong but as a public organisation they are held to account and so issues like this get discovered, the same would not be said of an entirely privately run broadcasting sector.

umbers themselves have been blown out of proportion, they sound large compared to the salaries of you and I but put them up against the likes of ITV and Sky (both of whom have poached BBC stars using money in the past) and they'll look comparably fair I'm sure. It was major news because it's a nice knife to stick in the back, rarely do all of the papers run the same front page news unless a major major story breaks; BBC salaries aren't a major story but what was plastered on every single front page that day? Murdoch and his wrags want rid of the Beeb and that is why it must be protected, he cannot control the flow of information in this country.

Fully agree, only a great number of the viewing population feel that the likes of Love Island are the best of British television.

Not forgetting the complete dingbats who believe (and they definitely do) that Coronation Street, Eastenders, Emmerdale, et al are all real-life programmes!

More importantly why isn't David Attenborough at the top of that list? If it is because he isn't earning enough money then give that man a damn pay rise! This national treasures documentaries are worth the licence fee alone!

It wasn't until the salary debate that I realised just how much I use the BBC.On my phone apps I use the BBC for news, weather forecast, football, cricket and music information.On the radio I listen to Test Match Special and of course the excellent TV programmes, the recent Alaska Wild Live series was fantastic.

Have had my say on inflated salaries for immature 'presenters' but that isn't linked in anyway to not 'liking' the bbc.Sat and watched three hours from Ypres the other night including the 'event' with Helen Mirren, Alfie Boe, Hislop, War Horse, Wipers Times etc etc. Didn't expect too much but it was superbly presented, immaculately timed and so 'pertinent' to the various emotions linked with Passchendaele. Superb tv. Maybe not just the BBC at work but, like the reference to Attenborough before, it was an indication of what the BBC can be, at it's best!

If it weren't for the BBC then none of those would have existed. Who else would have taken a chance on shows like these? I'd go so far as to say this: I dread what British culture would be like without it.

Still, if the BBC never existed, we'd still have On The Buses. :rolleyes:

If it weren't for the BBC then none of those would have existed. Who else would have taken a chance on shows like these? I'd go so far as to say this: I dread what British culture would be like without it.

Still, if the BBC never existed, we'd still have On The Buses. :rolleyes:

I know we live in an omnichannel world - mobile, social, on demand etc., but reflecting on what our household watches and also using the Planner as a guide, I would say the output probably breaks down as follows:

Yep, the sheer quantity and quality of content is amazing when you think about it. TV, podcasts, iPlayer, radio, news, the excellent website. All high quality, niche to populist, and with no adverts.

The things I have no interest in (Eastenders, kids programming, Strictly etc) I recognise are of huge value to its intended audience. And even checking on Argyle news (fixtures especially), the PAFC page on there is very good.

Long may it continue

Amen to that. Most of them are an insult to our intelligence, or is the average intelligence that low?